Dear Jennifer,
A couple of weeks ago I became quite agitated after reading an article in The Australian’s Higher Education section by Roger Jones of CSIRO. Jones questioned the sceptics drawing attention to flaws in the computer models and then went on to explain what the models were supposed to do, not what they actually do!
I responded to The Australian with the following submission:
Global Warming: Solving an Environmental Problem or Creating a Social Crisis?
Prevention of dangerous climate change, particularly through implementation of a national carbon pollution reduction scheme, has emerged as a primary policy objective of the Rudd government. The rationale for the policy is the scientific assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its computer-based projections of global warming. We are told by the IPCC ‘consensus of scientists’ that continued burning of fossil fuels, and a range of other industry activities that increase the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ in the atmosphere, will lead to dangerous climate change, possibly passing a ‘tipping point’ causing ‘runaway global warming’.
What does this all mean, really?
The IPCC’s most recent assessment attempts to be helpful to the casual enquirer by having a series of explanations for ‘frequently asked questions’, or FAQs. The first FAQ is ‘What factors determine earth’s climate’? We are informed that, on average, the earth emits 240 w m-2 of radiation to space and that this equates to an emission temperature of -19oC. The earth’s temperature, however, is about 14oC and the -19oC temperature is found at a height of about 5 km above the surface. To quote the IPCC: “The reason the earth’s surface is this warm is the presence of greenhouse gases, which act as a partial blanket for the longwave radiation coming from the earth’s surface. This blanketing is known as the natural greenhouse effect”.
This explanation by the IPCC is clearly misleading, if not wrong. The inference that the greenhouse gases are acting like a blanket suggests that they are increasing the insulating properties of the atmosphere. However, the main gases of the atmosphere are oxygen and nitrogen, non-greenhouse gases, and they are also excellent insulators against the conduction of heat (like a blanket); adding additional trace amounts of carbon dioxide will have no appreciable impact on the insulating properties of the atmosphere.
In its third FAQ, ‘What is the greenhouse effect?’ the IPCC comes to the nub of the issue but provides a different and equally misleading explanation. “Much of the thermal radiation emitted by the land and the ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to earth. This is called the greenhouse effect”. According to the IPCC’s global energy budget, the surface emits 390 W m-2 of radiation and the energy radiated back to the surface is 324 W m-2. It is difficult to see how an ongoing net loss of longwave radiation energy from the surface of 66 W m-2 can lead to warming! Indeed, we are all aware that between dusk and dawn the earth’s surface cools.
The IPCC has not explained in a scientifically sound and coherent way, how the ‘greenhouse effect’ is maintained. The greenhouse gases do not increase the insulating properties of the atmosphere and the back radiation does not warm the surface. The IPCC explanation of the greenhouse effect is obfuscation and, even to the mildly scientific literate, reflects ignorance of basic processes of the climate system.
How then do we explain to people who are going to be affected by reactionary government policies what are the greenhouse effect and its enhancement by additional carbon dioxide?
A credible explanation has no need for smoke and mirrors. The energy flow through the climate system is predominantly by way of four stages: 1) absorption of solar radiation at the surface; 2) conduction of heat and evaporation of latent energy from the surface to the atmospheric boundary layer; 3) convective overturning that distributes heat and latent energy through the troposphere; and 4) radiation of energy from the atmosphere to space. We will see that it is the characteristics of convective overturning that keep the surface warmer than it would otherwise be.
The Kiehl and Trenberth (1997) global average energy budget of the earth is used by the IPCC and is a useful starting point for explanation of the establishment and maintenance of the greenhouse effect.
Of the 340 units of solar radiation entering the earth’s atmosphere, 67 are absorbed by the atmosphere and 168 are absorbed at the surface. There is thus an ongoing source of solar energy available to the atmosphere and the surface.
At the surface there is a net accumulation of radiation energy because the incoming solar radiation (168 units) exceeds the net loss of longwave radiation (66 units).
In the atmospheric layer there is absorption of 417 units (390 of emission from the surface, less 40 that go directly to space, plus absorption of 67 of solar radiation) and an emission of 519 units (324 back to the surface and 195 direct emission to space). The net effect of the interaction between the greenhouse gases and radiation is a tendency to cool the atmosphere because it is continually losing energy.
Overall there is a dichotomy, with radiation processes firstly tending to warm the earth’s surface and secondly tending to cool the atmosphere. Air is an excellent insulator against conduction of heat and will not transfer heat through the atmosphere, as is necessary for energy balance. Also, the thermodynamic properties of air (potential temperature increases with height) ensure that turbulent motions of the atmosphere will mix energy downward, not upward as required.
The process for transferring energy from the surface to the atmosphere, necessary to achieve overall energy balance of the climate system, was explained by Herbert Riehl and Joanne Malkus (the latter better known as Joanne Simpson) in a 1958 paper, On the heat balance of the equatorial trough zone (Geophysica). Riehl and Malkus noted that boundary layer air, rising buoyantly in the protected updraughts of deep tropical convection clouds, converts heat and latent energy to potential energy. Away from the convection, compensating subsidence converts potential energy to heat.
What is implied in the Riehl and Malkus model is that deep tropical convection, and the transfer of energy from the surface to the atmosphere, will not take place without buoyant updraughts within deep convection clouds. That is, there is a need for the temperature of the atmosphere to decrease with altitude and that the rate of decrease of temperature must be sufficient to allow buoyancy of the air ascending in the updraughts. From well-known thermodynamic laws, the rate of decrease of temperature must be at least 6.5oC/km to allow the buoyancy forces of convection to overcome the natural stratification of the atmosphere.
The climate system will come into energy equilibrium when temperatures are such that the net solar radiation absorbed is balanced by the longwave radiation to space. At equilibrium, the greenhouse effect (ie, that the average surface temperature of 14oC is greater than the -19oC blackbody emission temperature of earth) is an outcome from the need for convective overturning of the atmosphere.
Additional warming of the surface will come about when the greenhouse effect is enhanced. The fundamental question is how much warming will additional greenhouse gas concentrations cause and will it be dangerous?
An increase in the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration reduces the emission of longwave radiation to space and increases the back radiation at the surface. An increase in back radiation adds energy to the surface, which will further warm the surface. However there is a constraint on the surface temperature rise because of the commensurate increase in rate of energy loss from the surface: both the rate of infrared emission and the rate of evaporation of latent heat increase with temperature.
The increase in radiation emission from the surface can be calculated from the well-known Boltzmann equation and is 5.4 units/oC at 15oC. The earth’s surface is mainly ocean or freely transpiring vegetation and evaporation will increase near exponentially with temperature according to the Claussius-Clapeyron relationship and is 6.0 units/oC at 15oC. According to the IPCC, the radiative forcing from doubling of carbon dioxide concentration is 3.7 units.
The actual surface temperature increase is derived from the ratio of the radiation forcing (3.7) to the natural rate of increase in surface energy loss with temperature (5.4 + 6.0). The direct surface temperature rise from a doubling of carbon dioxide is therefore 3.7/(5.4 + 6.0) = 0.3oC.
A 0.3oC global temperature increase towards the end of the 21st century from a doubling of current carbon dioxide concentration is not obviously dangerous. However, what also needs to be taken into account is the positive feedback. A warming of the surface temperature will cause a warming of the overlying atmosphere, an increase in the water vapour concentration (another naturally occurring greenhouse gas), a further increase in back radiation, and an incremental increase in surface temperature. Each successive incremental surface temperature increase will cause another incremental temperature increase through the positive feedback amplification.
The amplification follows standard mathematical treatment and, as long as the ratio r is less than unity, the gain is given by [1 / (1 – r)]. Here r is the ratio of natural increase in back radiation with temperature (4.8 units/oC – estimated from a standard radiation transfer model) to the natural increase of surface energy loss with temperature (as previously, 11.4 units/oC). The natural gain is 1.7 and increases the surface temperature rise from a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration from 0.3oC to 0.5oC.
A 0.5oC increase in global temperature over the coming century is within recent short-term temperature variability and is less than the apparent global temperature rise of the past century. Moreover, both the direct forcing of surface temperature and the amplification gain are tightly constrained by the magnitude of the natural increase of surface energy loss with temperature increase. It is not immediately apparent how ‘runaway global warming’ could come about with such a constraint.
A fundamental question arises as to why the IPCC global temperature projections for doubling carbon dioxide concentration, based on computer models of the climate system, lead to estimates of about 3oC, or about six times the above estimate.
A clue to the conundrum can be found in published descriptions of the performance of the computer models used in the IPCC fourth assessment. Isaac Held and Brian Soden, writing in the Journal of Climate (2006) note that the rate of increase of evaporation in the computer models, on average, only increases at about one-third of the rate expected from the Claussius Clapeyron relationship. Additionally, Frank Wentz and colleagues, writing in the journal Science (2007), have confirmed the under-specification of evaporation increase with temperature and, from satellite based observations, have determined that global evaporation does indeed comply with the Claussius Clapeyron relationship.
It is clear from the above formulation of the surface temperature rise and the associated amplification gain that each is sensitive to the specification of evaporation increase with temperature. Substitution of the average evaporation specification of computer models into the formulation will boost the projected temperature rise from the above expected value of 0.5oC to 1.5oC, the lower end of IPCC projections. When the specification of evaporation increase with temperature is very low, as in the more extreme models, then the feedback amplification gain increases to a value of about ten; the temperature sensitivity of the computer model becomes highly exaggerated and model would likely simulate the behaviour of runaway global warming. The behaviour, of course, is false and arises only because of the significant under-specification of evaporation.
Despite the many claims that the IPCC projections of human-caused global warming are sound, the consensus of climate scientists and that the science is settled, there are disturbing shortcomings to both the essential explanations and to the computer modelling. The shortcomings are disturbing because the projections and their associated predictions of diabolical impacts on environmental systems are the only rational justification given for wholesale government restructuring of our industrial base and lifestyles.
This is the first time in human history that there has been a conscious move at the national level to discard the tools that have underpinned security, wellbeing and comfort. We are deliberately abrogating energy usage from proven and widely available sources on the basis of a perceived environmental threat which is poorly articulated and substantiated only by recourse to obviously deficient computer modelling.
Why am I reminded of Charles MacKay’s 1841 tome, “Extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds’?
William Kininmonth
Melbourne, Australia.
William Kininmonth is a former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre; a consultant to the World Meteorological Organization; and author of Climate Change: A Natural Hazard (2004, Multi-Science Publishing)
P.S. The four important papers underpinning my analysis are:
Riehl, H and J. Malkus, 1958. On the heat balance of the equatorial trough zone. Geophysica, v6, Nos 3-4 pp503-538 (This paper describes how heat and moisture from the tropical boundary layer is distributed through the troposphere by way of deep buoyant convection, thus offsetting net radiation loss of energy of the troposphere. Buoyant convection requires a decrease of temperature with altitude, thus the surface must be warmer than the effective emission temperature of the troposphere – the greenhouse effect!)
Priestley, C.H.B., 1966. The limitation of temperature by evaporation in hot climates. Agricultural Meteorology, 3 pp241-246 (This paper explains, supported by data, why deserts are hotter than vegetated lands. Essentially, the earth’s surface loses energy by way of conduction, evaporation and emission of infrared radiation; for dry surfaces there is a shift in energy loss to conduction and radiation at higher temperatures whereas for wet surfaces there is a shift to evaporation of latent heat at a lower temperature. This analysis clearly makes a nonsense of the IPCC claim of a linear relationship between surface temperature increase ΔTs and radiation forcing ΔF, that is, (ΔTs/ΔF = λ). From surface energy balance (or conservation of energy), ΔTs = ΔF*[4*σ*Ts4 + A*L*(dqs/dT)]. Here (dqs/dT) is the rate of increase of water vapour saturation specific humidity with temperature (the Claussius Clapeyron relationship); the first term in the brackets on the right hand side is the rate of increase of surface infrared emission with temperature; and the second term is the rate of increase of latent heat exchange with temperature. For a dry surface, the rate of increase of infrared emission with temperature is approximately linear over short temperature ranges – earth’s surface happens to be approximately 70 percent water and a large part of the remainder is transpiring vegetation.)
Held, I.M. and B.J. Soden, 2006. Robust response of the hydrological cycle to global warming. J of Climate, v19 pp5686-5699 (The paper identifies that, in the GCM used in the IPCC fourth assessment, the rate of increase of surface evaporation is on average only one third the Claussius Clapeyron relationship (dqs/dT). The authors use this deficiency to explain why the rate of convective overturning of the models decreases as temperature increases. The important point is that the GCM apparently significantly under-estimate surface evaporation and latent heat exchange with temperature increase.)
Wentz, F.J., L. Ricciardulli, K. Hilburn and C. Mears, 2007 How much more rain will global warming bring? ScienceExpress 31 May (published later in Science, 13 July 2007). (This paper confirms, from satellite data over recent decades, that global precipitation (and hence evaporation and latent heat exchange) increases with temperature according to the Claussius Clapeyron relationship. Thus the under-estimation of evaporation in GCM also implies an underestimation of precipitation increase with warming. The authors do not recognise that under-estimation of evaporation and latent heat exchange will also lead to overestimation of surface temperature rise! I have quantified the over-estimation of global temperature rise in the analysis that follows.)
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“This explanation by the IPCC is clearly misleading, if not wrong. The inference that the greenhouse gases are acting like a blanket suggests that they are increasing the insulating properties of the atmosphere. However, the main gases of the atmosphere are oxygen and nitrogen, non-greenhouse gases, and they are also excellent insulators against the conduction of heat (like a blanket); adding additional trace amounts of carbon dioxide will have no appreciable impact on the insulating properties of the atmosphere.”
It’s like G&T have risen from the dead again. “It’s like” means “It’s like”, not “It is”. Just as we teach all those poor students at school that an atom is like a little ball, when it clearly isn’t. Kinninmonth must be getting extremely agitated about that too.
SJT: what’s your main point in relation to the substance of his piece?
It’s becoming increasingly clear that the computer models that underpin the IPCC’s climate forecast and the scaremongering of Gore et al are flawed.
I’m also bemused that AGW supporters seem to have a ‘special knowledge’ about what the World’s optimum climate state should be. I wish they’d tell us: is it the one we have now, or had 10, 20 or 30 years ago?
Evidence points to the climate we have now (or one slightly warmer) being very beneficial to mankind as there would be fewer cold related deaths and more CO2 in the atmosphere would be very good for vegetation growth – we need more feed not biofuels!
SJT has no point – he is paid by the AGO to belittle the sceptics who post here by a continued barrage of ad hominems and inane soliloquys when he lost for words.
Wentz do not show that global warming will be lower because of higher evaporation. That is a leap of faith, without basis in the literature (unless Bill can provide a reference or has written a paper on it).
I suggest Bill also read.
EOS, VOLUME 89 NUMBER 21 20 May 2008.
How Much Will Precipitation Increase With Global Warming?
By F. H. Lambert et al.
Interdecadal Variability of Rainfall on a Warming Planet
By M. Previdi and B. G. Liepert
These discuss Wentz’s work in considerable detail.
BTW Wentz’s et al. MSU data (the RSS) show a warming consistent with climate model predictions – and with Mears he was instrumental in showing that Spencer and Christy had got their diurnal temperature corrections wrong. I’m guessing Bill hasn’t discussed his conclusions with Wentz.
“SJT: what’s your main point in relation to the substance of his piece?”
I got as far as the introduction, only to find he has no idea what he is talking about.
“SJT: what’s your main point in relation to the substance of his piece?”
I got as far as the introduction, only to find he has no idea what he is talking about.
“Additional warming of the surface will come about when the greenhouse effect is enhanced. The fundamental question is how much warming will additional greenhouse gas concentrations cause and will it be dangerous?”
Its nice to see Bill confirming the scientific truth. Sort of takes the wind out of Cohenite and Louis’s sails. You see even a skeptic thinks there is a greenhouse effect.
“A 0.5oC increase in global temperature over the coming century is within recent short-term temperature variability and is less than the apparent global temperature rise of the past century.”
Hooray another unsophisticated guess at climate sensitivity – just what we need. I guess if we can all have guesses on the back of an envelope we can throw away the GCMs and supercomputers as envelope models are obviously far better than computers models.
Only one thing Bill – the temperature rise so far from the enhanced greenhouse effect is ~0.6deg and CO2 hasn’t doubled yet – is that a problem?
Can any one steer me to published papers that actually measure change of temperature related to CO2 change in a closed (or open) system? Thanks.
Looks like the climate establishment might have just decided to blog back.
New Aussie blog.
Denial vs good science?
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/13/denial-vs-good-science-part-i/#comments
Ender,
“Only one thing Bill – the temperature rise so far from the enhanced greenhouse effect is ~0.6deg and CO2 hasn’t doubled yet – is that a problem?”
It is for you. The rise is logarithmic. IF you are counting from 280ppm doubling would be 560. We’ve already got almost half of the doubling in CO2. That also means we have almost half the temp rise for the doubling. That means to 560 we may get another .6c. What is that, maybe 1.5c per doubling?? Let’s double it again after the 560 and see how well most of the biosphere responds!!
Don’t forget, you get the temp increase as you go along, weather permitting!! If you don’t get a big rise early, you ain’t getting it!!!! SMIRK!!
Luke,
the primary poster states:
“The concern is that at some point – perhaps soon – positive feedbacks and hysteresis takes the problem forever out of our hands.”
Yeah, no one on the AGW side is talking about tipping points anymore!! Yet, the IPCC tries to claim they are not projecting catastrophe. Which is it, tipping points, or we can wait another 50 years and see what is really going on!!
Ender said …”Hooray another unsophisticated guess at climate sensitivity ”
We already know exactly what climate sensitivity is. We’ve had a 70% increase in CO2 since WWII and the temperature has risen less that 0.5 C. What else do you need to know? If CO2 increases another 70% it will be even less.
Wanna know why? Of course you do. Painting a pane of glass makes it opaque. Adding another layer of paint makes it a little more opaque, but not twice as much. The more paint you add, the less effect it has. Same thing with CO2, the more you add, the less effect it has.
We could go up another 70% from present levels, to about 540 ppmv, and we’d ‘probably’ get a 0.3 C increase. That should take about 100 years. I say ‘probably’ because we might get nothing. The way it’s looking now, it will likely cool.
“We could go up another 70% from present levels, to about 540 ppmv, and we’d ‘probably’ get a 0.3 C increase.”
And that would have a positive or negative effect on ecosystems, hmmm …, perhaps we should start deliberatly increasing the amount of CO2 we produce and release into the atmosphere then the anti-AGW people could actually do some research and tell us their findings. What about you Jen, the ol’CIS gig can’t take up too much time, and you don’t contribute here often and you’re only on the Duffy show occasionally (he’s gone a bit quiet on AGW lately hasn’t he?). Oh BTW how are you going with your literature review? When can we expect the findings?
tooroo
Patrick.
Patrick B…you seem to assume we anti-AWG types want to live in smog with as much CO2 as we can take. Not so. I have always been in favour of reducing emissions and cleaning up the environment, I general. I am disturbed by the new religion that feels everything must be done right now, sparing no expense.
That’s what the debate is about for me mainly, the collossal expense and the taxation that goes with it. In Canada, otherwise level-headed politicians are talking about reducing CO2 emissions by 80%, literally overnight. They don’t seem to care what kind of havoc that will wreak on the economy and the biosphere.
I have a link for folk like Ender who can’t seem to get past the intro of Bill’s post. I understand it pretty well but I think there may be some “who’s he to be talking about this” in it, even though Bill’s credentials look good to me.
This link points to a 2007 article on the greenhouse effect by one of the foremost atmospheric physicists in the world, who has over 40 years experience in the field. A person might be interested in pages 6 and 7 in particular.
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~wsoon/ArmstrongGreenSoon08-Anatomy-d/Lindzen07-EnE-warm-lindz07.pdf
KuhnKat – “What is that, maybe 1.5c per doubling?? Let’s double it again after the 560 and see how well most of the biosphere responds!!”
A CS of 1.5degC would put it into the lower range of the IPCC and completely contradict Bill’s back of the envelope calculation of 0.5degC
KuhnKat – it’s a risk management problem. Substantial amount of knowledge available, but imperfect knowledge, potentially significant consequences for both intervention and non-intervention. Existing human exposure to weather events and climate shifts considerable and ongoing. Probability of moving the ends of the distribution is “x”?
Gordon Robertson – “We already know exactly what climate sensitivity is”
Really? I guess then you should publish the paper stating this and get all the accolades you richly deserve.
“Wanna know why? Of course you do. Painting a pane of glass makes it opaque”
However painting a window is not a good analogy and if this is the best you can do then I guess we are not going to get that paper after all. The reality is much more complex that this however the upshot is that we are not in the part of the curve yet where saturation really starts to take effect. CO2 would have to be 1000ppm or more for this to occur. Right now where we are now a doubling of CO2 produces almost a doubling of absorption.
To use your faulty analogy if you painted the window with paint that was almost transparent you would see almost as well out of the first maybe 5 coats and it would take 7 or 8 before the opacity of the window was changed enough to significantly dim the light shining through. Right now we within at the first 5 layers change.
Gordon and KuhnKat
You also forget the other positive temperature effects that are initiated by the CO2 rise that will also contribute to warming… For example the increase in H2O and CH4 that is happening in response (due to greater evaporation and methane from the tundra). There are also changes to albedo. This means that your 1.5C increase from CO2 will be compounded by additional increases from these other effects.
dipstick2:
1) “Its nice to see Bill confirming the scientific truth. Sort of takes the wind out of Cohenite and Louis’s sails. You see even a skeptic thinks there is a greenhouse effect.”
That’s a straw man. You excel at that – and only that. We have never said greenhouse doesn’t exist, simply that the AGW CO2 effect is not detectable against natural variation. Try not straw-manning with puerile sarcasm if you want to be taken seriously. Ho hum …
2) “the temperature rise so far from the enhanced greenhouse effect is ~0.6deg … ”
Compared with when, exactly ? Answer the question.
Just another straw man … temperature anomalies have stabilized for a decade now.
Ianl – “We have never said greenhouse doesn’t exist”
Really? I guess you need to read cohenite and Louis’s posts a bit more closely. This is what has been so funny – having people like you that can admit to the physics of AGW and cohenite, Jan Pompe and Louis with their own nu-physics that deny the radiative physics.
“Compared with when, exactly ? Answer the question.”
Compared with a standard baseline that is agreed amongst all parties.
“temperature anomalies have stabilized for a decade now.”
Jennifer or you have yet to produce the data that shows this. So how about you practice what you preach and show us the data.
“That’s a straw man. You excel at that – and only that. We have never said greenhouse doesn’t exist, simply that the AGW CO2 effect is not detectable against natural variation. Try not straw-manning with puerile sarcasm if you want to be taken seriously. Ho hum …”
Not a strawman at all. There are plenty of people who post here who still don’t accept that CO2 is a GHG.
I have just accessed the latest Mauna Loa readings for atmospheric CO2, and just the merest whiff of Garnaut and Wong has been enough to cause the July reading to drop below June’s for the first time since 2004. The annualised growth rate since July 2007 is just 0.33 per cent. The well known (to all except AGW mongers) rule of thumb is that it will take 70 years divided by that growth rate to achieve a doubling of the atmospheric concentration, i.e. 212 years, to 2220, whereas Garnaut says c2070 if not before.
ender; you’re a verballer; enhanced greenhouse is a joke; the greenhouse analogy to a physical greenhouse is a sick joke; and the notion of a semi-infinite, vertically expanding photosphere simply doesn’t occur; if it did adiabatic convectional exchanges of air would not occur; although I suppose a troposphere hot spot or 2 might then appear; you guys never fail to amaze me; the bulk of the atmosphere is nitrogen and oxygen, unsexy gases because their presence can’t be blamed on humanity; the atmosphere insulates alright; AGW has just picked the wrong gases and the wrong mechanism. BTW would you care to elaborate on your assertion that CO2 logarithmic saturation will only start to occur at 1000ppm?
NT; atmospheric RH is declining;
http://mls.jpl.nasa.gov/library/Minschwaner_2004.pdf
The significance of this is that atmospheric enthalpy declines via the lessing ability of the atmosphere to store latent heat. If there is warming, H2O kicks in as a negative feedback; it’s what Miscolczi predicted and Spencer explains.
cohenite – “AGW has just picked the wrong gases and the wrong mechanism.”
Well you had better get on the blower to Bill as he has completely contradicted you.
I really think you people to get your stories straight.
Ianl – See it wasn’t a straw man after all – here it is straight from the horse’s mouth.
August 11, 2008
Sea ice decline accelerates, Amundsen’s Northwest Passage opens
” Overview of conditions
Arctic sea ice extent on August 10 was 6.54 million square kilometers (2.52 million square miles), a decline of 1 million square kilometers (390,000 square miles) since the beginning of the month. Extent is now within 780,000 square kilometers (300,000 square miles) of last year’s value on the same date and is 1.50 million square kilometers (580,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average.”
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html
Still verballing ender, and I suspect the thrill of winning a point is what sustains you; now I will spell it out as if that will make any difference: the gaseous atmosphere has insulating properties; the main gases responsible are nitrogen and oxygen which are warmed by conductive contact with the surface, and to a lessor extent through kinetic exchange from you know who in the atmosphere; H2O in its myraid forms is a temp moderator; it works against temp movements generally; a CO2 molecule cannot heat by warming itself or other CO2 molecules because they emit as soon as they absorb; the slight differential between excitation and deexcitation of the CO2’s would produce an opaqueness but is defeated by convective heat exchange as Chilingar et al explain; how could it be otherwise if the main molecules that receive the kinetic energy from the CO2 has to be either nitrogen or oxygen, and when the parcel of air they predominate in warms it will rise? So verballer, I’m not diverging from the orthodoxy; how about you explaining how a CO2 molecule can be in itself a retainer of heat when it loses energy through both emission and kinetic transfer; the other GHG’s, particularly methane and ozone are worth a seperate discussion. And BTW, don’t call me a horse’s mouth, and resist the temptation to refer to other parts of the anatomy thank you.
Ender
Jan Pompe and I do not deny radiative physics – you only think we do because of ignorance.
Pity the measured longwave has gone up though eh?
Only allegedly the LW coming down; the question you haven’t addressed is how it got there since the Philopona paper states;
“Neverless,changes in radiative forcing related to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations could not be experimentally detected at Earth’s surface so far.”
What do you mean allegedly – you mean measured by the radiation experts at Davos. “Nevertheless” refers to the prior situation. The paper is a quite good demonstration of MODTRAN validation. There’ll be more of this type of evidence once they establish further global networks. This just boots all your unpublished hobbyist theorising out the window (IMO of course).
David: “BTW Wentz’s et al. MSU data (the RSS) show a warming consistent with climate model predictions – and with Mears he was instrumental in showing that Spencer and Christy had got their diurnal temperature corrections wrong. I’m guessing Bill hasn’t discussed his conclusions with Wentz.”
Baloney!
The UAH has been shown to be the more acccurate than the RSS data – Wentz nas recently thanked John Chritsy for helping to correct errors in the RSS data.
There has been considerable discussion on the use of microwave sounding unit (MSU) data to assess multi-decadal tropspheric temperature trends (e.g. see CCSP, 2006). An important new paper is in press in the Journal of Geophysical Research which adds new insight into this issue including a comparison of the analyses from two of the leading groups that analyze multi-decadal tropospheric temperature trends from the MSU data [i.e. University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) and Remote Sensing Systems (RSS)]
The paper is
Randall, R. M., and B. M. Herman (2007), Using Limited Time Period Trends as a Means to Determine Attribution of Discrepancies in Microwave Sounding Unit Derived Tropospheric Temperature Time Series, J. Geophys. Res., doi:10.1029/2007JD008864, in press
with the abstract
“Limited Time Period (LTP) running trends are created from various Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) difference time series between the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) and Remote Sensing System (RSS) group’s lower troposphere (LT) and mid troposphere to lower stratosphere (MT) channels. This is accomplished in an effort to determine the causes of the greatest discrepancies between the two data sets.Results indicate the greatest discrepancies were over time periods where NOAA-11 through NOAA-15 adjustments were applied to the raw LT data over land. Discrepancies in the LT channel are shown to be dominated by differences in diurnal correction methods due to orbital drift; however, discrepancies from target parameter differences are also present.Comparison of MSU data with the a reduce RATPAC radiosonde dataset indicates that RSS’s method (use of climate model) of determining diurnal effects is likely overestimating the correction in the LT channel. Diurnal correction signatures still exist in the RSS LT time series and are likely affecting the long term trend with a warm bias. Our findings enhance the importance of understanding temporal changes in the atmospheric temperature trend profile and their implications on current climate studies.”
One of the important results of this study is that
“Figure 5 shows that 10-year trends center on the mid-1994’s through 10 year trends centered on the mid-1995’s indicates the RSS−Sonde trends are significantly different from zero where the Sonde−UAH trends are not. In addition, for 10-year trends centered on late-1999 through 10- years trend centered on early 2000 the RSS−Sonde trends are significantly different from zero where Sonde−UAH are marginally not. Another key feature in the RSS−Sonde series is the rapid departure in trend magnitude from trends centered on 1995 through trends centered on late-1999 where the Sonde−UAH magnitude in trends is nearly constant. These features are consistent with the diurnal correction signatures previously discussed. These findings the RSS method for creating the diurnal correction (use of a climate model) is cause for discrepancies between RSS and UAH databases in the LT channel.”
“We compared the MSU data to the radiosonde data and found that the RSS−Sonde is significantly different from zero while Sonde−UAH is not during time periods that are consistent with overcorrected diurnal corrections dominating the LT channel. We used “good��? radiosonde data [Randel and Wu, 2006] in order to minimize negative trend biases in stratospheric and upper tropospheric radiosonde data. Corrected diurnal signatures were shown to still exist in the RSS LT time series. The longer 10-year LTP trends were additionally shown to have a positive bias, thus the present corrected diurnal signatures are likely affecting the long term trend with a warm bias. RSS’s method is likely overestimating the diurnal correction in the LT channel, it follows that the same process is invoking a discrepancy in the diurnal correction in the MT channel. An initial overestimation of the diurnal correction may be small enough to either be masked or dominated by the target factors in the MT channel, but further research is necessary to isolate which correction method is dominant, if any.”
While both UAH and RSS are outstanding research groups, with respect to the assessment of multi-decadal tropospheric temperature trends, the independent comparison reported in Randall and Herman indicates that the trend values of the UAH group are more accurate.
Link for my comment above:
http://climatesci.org/2008/01/01/important-new-paper-using-limited-time-period-trends-as-a-means-to-determine-attribution-of-discrepancies-in-microwave-sounding-unit-derived-tropospheric-temperature-time-by-rmrandall-and-bm-herman/
Also, Re:
Wentz, F.J., L. Ricciardulli, K. Hilburn and C. Mears, 2007 How much more rain will global warming bring? ScienceExpress 31 May (published later in Science, 13 July 2007).
The authors state that over the past 20 years evaporation has equalled precipitation.
luke; that is a 2004 paper; here is Philopona’s 2008 paper;
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL034228.shtml
As I said somewhere the ozones and methanes deserve some discussion; if the absence of aerosols allows the sun to have this much affect it is to those that the issue of anthropogenic imput should be directed at; but if you think about it, theorise even, the absence of the aerosols is only allowing the conditions to revert to normal.
Sun effect – pfffttt. Email him – explains shortwave, doesn’t explain the longwave. His papers have implications for longwave, shortwave and water vapour but let’s not jumble it all up.
The above article is a far more sophisticated take on the situation and in comparison with the alarmist nonsense its like walking from the cold floor onto the carpet.
Still its a static equilibrium model. And like the alarmist models it contains an extraordinary amount of aggregation and heroic simplifying assumptions to come up with its mathematical conclusions.
So the model has been taken from a ludicrous stick-figure to a passable cartoon. Which is no criticism. And we need this sort of input and calculations so that we can see in which direction reality will differ from the models.
So how is reality different?
!. He’s working from the point of view of no influence from solar variability. But we know that the solar output will turn down.
2. Its an atmosphere-centric rather than an ocean centric model,
3. The implicit assumption is that without our influence the climate would kick on as before whereas in reality it would cool. This would not be his actual belief because he is clearly an intelligent fellow and not a lunatic. But this assumption is implicit in what he says above.
4. The level of aggregation leads me to believe that like alarmist models the water vapour is being averaged out globally for purposes of his calculations. But in the mid-Western areas of large continents, and in the sub-zero celsius zones, water vapour will not increase in anything like the way these averaging assumptions assume.
WHEN WE AVERAGE OUT WATER VAPOUR GLOBALLY WE LEAVE A GREAT DEAL OF TOPSIDE TO HOW MUCH MORE WATER VAPOUR THE AIR CAN HOLD.
Hence when we apply this alleged “forcing” our calculations lead to a massive overestimate in how much water vapour will be produced.
For example there will be no more water vapour produced over -60 degrees Antarctic ice as a result of extra CO2. None whatsoever. Nor will there be a great deal more coming out of the Sahara or Nevada deserts.
This is not to poo-poo his calculations. Indeed they are useful. Because having them we know that the net effect will at least be less than what he’s saying. So we can be pretty sure that 1.5 degrees for a doubling is an huge overestimate.
Which is not to say I’m buying into this static equilibrium way of looking at things in the first place. But aside me rejecting the ruling paradigm outright still we can say that the 1.5 degrees estimate is too high (more is the pity).
Unless he can bring in some gear about extra air pressure having some sort of warming effect (which is likely in my book) than we can be very sure that we won’t be blessed by anything so blissful as this level of warming to counter the next little-ice-age that is at our doorstep.
5. He isn’t including the negative feedback of oceanic ice (more commonly thought of in error as a positive feedback).
6. There is nothing there about the negative feedback associated with the ocean conveyer. It is thought that the poles would be disproportionately warmed as far as air temperature is concerned. But this would reduce the driving factor behind the gulf stream and hence ocean heat differentials would become greater leading to more radiation into space via Stefan Boltzmanns law.
7. There is nothing here about accumulating and decumulating joules in the oceans (and the planet itself) over time. But yet this is the very essence of climate.
In summary what we read above is a greatly improved and enhanced “watts-per-square-metre” model. I maintain that to make the calculations from this sort of model realistic we would be talking about a flat planet, twice as far from the sun, where the water vapour is averaged out. The surface is uniform. Its noon all the time. And the oceans and earth neither accumulated or lost joules.
Its a better estimate but its still a static-equilibrium estimate. Its still a flat earth paradigm. A better version of the flat earth paradigm but the flat earth paradigm nonetheless.
But from it we see that such feeble warming as we may get in mitigation of the new little-ice-age CANNOT-NOT be a good thing.
I can see that this fellow is groping at a strata-and-heat budget model. But he hasn’t quite left the flat earth model behind.
Still one can be confident that the IPCC’s lower-bound estimate is actually a vast over-estimate of any reasonable upper-bound estimate. And it is in this way that his facts and calculations are extremely useful.
“August 11, 2008
Sea ice decline accelerates, Amundsen’s Northwest Passage opens”
But what do imagine this PROVES Birdie?
The planet can is cooling and the sea ice is melting. Both are happening at the same time it seems. And this isn’t even a little bit surprising.
For flat-earth static-equilibrium models it might possibly be surprising. But these models are flawed. And so there is no anomaly here to answer for.
Which is not to say (by the way) that CO2-warming might not have some sort of disproportionate effect where the air is dry and the wind blows hard.
I just thought I’d throw that in.
But so far we don’t have any sort of anomaly to answer for unless you cannot see past static-equilibrium models.
Can you not be happy for other folks Birdie? Slightly warmer winter mornings for the Laplanders Birdie?
Little Yukos gets to see his first butterfly Birdie?
Is there no warmth in an alarmists heart for the good things that are purely hypothetical and 99% bullshit for starters?
So far no anomaly to answer for.
But yet there are one or two things that we cannot rule out.
We can rule out catastrophic or problematic warming via CO2.
But there are other effects that we cannot in good faith rule out.
“the greenhouse analogy to a physical greenhouse is a sick joke”
For god’s sake. Are you serious?
I read it’s also been called the ‘leaky bucket’ effect, but that never caught on, although it is perhaps a better model to use, even if the earth looks nothing like a bucket, either.
Of COURSE he’s serious!!!!
Lets go over it again shall we!. THE GREENHOUSE ANALOGY TO A PHYSICAL GREENHOUSE IS A SICK JOKE.
Now what is it about that obvious reality that you didn’t get the first time ?
You could call it the “gas-colour adjustment” if you wanted to. That would be more on target. More in keeping with the likely magnitude of whats going on.
The “greenhouse effect” got its name from a 19th century conjecture about the accumulation of infrared light in a garden greenhouse. But after it was proved that such an accumulation did not take place, it was too late: Early climatologists had picked up that imaginary ball and they’ve been running with it ever since. The “greenhouse effect” violates every known law of physics, but what the hell. It’s a tradition now. It is “settled science.”
“Can any one steer me to published papers that actually measure change of temperature related to CO2 change in a closed (or open) system? Thanks.”
———–
i just posted this link in one of the “proof CO2 topics”. but here it is again:
http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm
you can do the experiment yourself!
Sod: “i just posted this link in one of the “proof CO2 topics”. but here it is again:
http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm“
What your experiment has shown is the difference between 370ppm and 1000000ppm.
Now, do the same experiment showing the difference between 270ppm and 370ppm.
sod. You did it again. You mixed up the hypothesis with the conclusion. Just get it straight. A restatement of the hypothesis is not evidence for the conclusion.
We know what happens in the lab. The hypothesis was formed on the basis of what went on in the lab. Its a ONE-STEP INDUCTIVE HYPOTHESIS. Now with 50 billion dollars wasted on it.
Can we have some actual evidence and no more of this stupidity?
I don’t think thats too much to ask.
“What your experiment has shown is the difference between 370ppm and 1000000ppm.”
It doesn’t even say that. Its being outrageously presumptuous to think that what you can do with static air and light in the lab will pan out in the much more large, dynamic, variable and complex planet.
Can someone explain to sod what evidence is?
“he “greenhouse effect” violates every known law of physics, but what the hell. It’s a tradition now. It is “settled science.””
We have to clear up sloppy and misleading wording. If you think “greenhouse effect” is a misleading phrase than we ought to do our bit to get another phrase up. For my part I’ll start bashing people with the phrase “gas-colour adjustment” until someone gives me a better phrase than that.
These people have caused enourmous waste of funds simply on the basis of locking in the phrase “ocean acidification.”
People who are against science fraud ought to be showing the same sort of intention.
Sod as wonderful as it would be to accept the experiment alas I feel it only measures the difference in the specific heat of air and pure CO2. I believe the experiment has bee done with a more potent greenhouse gas – methane – and the warming was less than air. Why – methane takes more heat to warm a similar quantity.
So the experiment reflects the different specific heat of substances in a local confined convection loop – a very closed system.
Sceptics will undoubtedly find all manner of relevance in this – but I think it simply isn’t a valid experiment. (as much as it would suit our case to be). Not how the real atmosphere works where many effects are at play.
>David: “BTW Wentz’s et al. MSU data (the RSS) show a warming consistent with climate model predictions – and with Mears he was instrumental in showing that Spencer and Christy had got their diurnal temperature corrections wrong. I’m guessing Bill hasn’t discussed his conclusions with Wentz.”
Baloney!
Please leave it to the experts Paul. Mears and Wentz corrected the large error associated with the wrong signed diurnal temperature correction in the UAH. Further, Wentz with Schabel found the orbital decay error in the UAH product back in 1998 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6694/abs/394661a0.html) .
If it wasn’t for Wentz et al. the UAH product would probably still be showing a negative trend!
The RSS and UAH products are now extremely close and show substantial warming since 1979 in-line with climate models (despite the erroneous analysis of Doughlass et al). The reason why they are close is because the RSS “group” identified these two large errors in the UAH products.
Now… what exactly is your point? Wentz is not a sceptic, his data shows large warming, and his work does not support Bill hypothesis that models overestimate global warming. If you or Bill have any evidence to the contrary, please put it up for us all to see. Even better, publish it in a peer reviewed science journal rather than hiding it on the back page of the Age or on a blog.
Peter’s link showing the greenhouse experiment only demonstrates the difference between specific heat of CO2 vis that of air.
This is not a test of the greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse effect asserts that atmospheric CO2 traps heat, thereby raising the atmosphere’s temperature.
If the test had also measured the cooling of the two gas samples, then I suspect the CO2 sample would have cooled faster than the air sample.
Think about it.
Thats another thing about this watts-per-square metre model that strikes me as queer. No attention is given to the importance of specific heat capacity. So that the question becomes air rather than ocean-focused.
Interesting comment by Luke. The first reasonable comment I’ve ever seen of his so I thought I’d make some mention of it.
We could really mess the climate system up if we did something wrong to the oceans. But we don’t have much chance of screwing up the climate so long as we don’t cool it down via authentic rather than make-believe pollution.
Graeme, how about “trace-gas amplification theory”? Surface emits 168 Watts per square meter. Trace gases return 324 Watts per square meter. Uh-huh, no problem.
David. Solar cycles 21 and 22 were very strong. Thats the story there. CO2 doesn’t enter into it. Possibly the campaign against SO2 output to combat acid rain could have helped a bit. But nowhere can you make the link with CO2.
Climate models just tell the story they are programmed to tell. They are callibrated to the prior record after the fact. This is no test of anything. Its about as clever as a girl with big tits getting her cousin to program a drum machine and make a rock video. Its not really a great deal more significant than that.
cohenite – “the main gases responsible are nitrogen and oxygen which are warmed by conductive contact with the surface, and to a lessor extent through kinetic exchange from you know who in the atmosphere; H2O in its myraid forms is a temp moderator; it works against temp movements generally; a CO2 molecule cannot heat by warming itself or other CO2 molecules because they emit as soon as they absorb;”
I really cannot get my head around someone that would look at a physics textbook and go “Nahh thats wrong I will just make my own shit up”
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html
“If you are up on your chemistry, you may have noticed that all of the greenhouse gas molecules have three or more atoms. Molecular nitrogen (N2) and molecular oxygen (O2), the two most abundant gases in our atmosphere, each have only two atoms per molecule, and are not greenhouse gases. This is not a coincidence. As was mentioned earlier, GHG molecules are capable of absorbing passing infrared photons; the energy of the photon is converted into an excited vibrational state of the GHG molecule. So why don’t nitrogen and oxygen molecules absorb infrared photons?
Photons, including infrared photons, are of course a form of electromagnetic radiation. As such, they can also be understood as disturbances, or waves, of electromagnetic energy. Atoms, and the molecules they combine to form, have electrically charged particles (electrons and protons) in them. The gas molecules we are currently considering, nitrogen and oxygen and the various GHGs, have no net charge; they have equal numbers of electrons and protons. However, molecules that are on average neutral (in terms of their electrical charge) can still have localized charges, either some of the time (when they are vibrating) or all of the time..”
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html
“Molecules can absorb and emit three kinds of energy: energy from the excitation of electrons, energy from rotational motion, and energy from vibrational motion. The first kind of energy is also exhibited by atoms, but the second and third are restricted to molecules. A molecule can rotate about its center of gravity (there are three mutually perpendicular axes through the center of gravity). Vibrational energy is gained and lost as the bonds between atoms, which may be thought of as springs, expand and contract and bend. The three kinds of energy are associated with different portions of the spectrum: electronic energy is typically in the visible and ultraviolet portions of the spectrum (for example, wavelength of 1 micrometer, vibrational energy in the near infrared and infrared (for example, wavelength of 3 micrometers), and rotational energy in the far infrared to microwave (for example, wavelength of 100 micrometers). The specific wavelength of absorption and emission depends on the type of bond and the type of group of atoms within a molecule. Thus, the stretching of the C-H bond in the CH2 and CH3 groups involves infrared energy with a wavelength of 3.3-3.4 micrometers. What makes certain gases, such as carbon dioxide, act as “greenhouse” gases is that they happen to have vibrational modes that absorb energy in the infrared wavelengths at which the earth radiates energy to space. In fact, the measured “peaks” of infrared absorbance are often broadened because of the overlap of several electronic, rotational, and vibrational energies from the several-to-many atoms and interatomic bonds in the molecules. (Information from “Basic Principles of Chemistry” by Harry B. Gray and Gilbert P. Haight, Jr., published 1967 by W. A. Benjamin, Inc., New York and Amsterdam) [RMC]”
Do you think that the “Basic Principles of Chemistry” is wrong?
I also cannot reconcile this:
“”Neverless,changes in radiative forcing related to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations could not be experimentally detected at Earth’s surface so far.”
Posted by: cohenite at August 14, 2008 09:49 PM”
Accepting the paper means that you also must accept that greenhouse gases work as the textbooks say they do. Otherwise there is no point mentioning greenhouse gases.
Yes I like it. “Trace-gas amplification theory.” “The alleged gas-colour effect.”
You wouldn’t think the terminology was so important. But it is. You go to google scholar and look up “ocean acidification” and you’ll get a tonne of studies. But not much evidence of anything much beyond a shocking waste of money.
I just cannot take anything seriously that isn’t going to hold the energy long enough to outlive two weak solar cycles.
One thing that could alter climate coming from my view of the situation:
They are using the Gulf Stream to generate electricity in Florida. In my book if that was taken to the ultimate nth degree it would send us into another glaciation. Since it would increase heat differentials, therefore leading to disproportionately more heat radiated into space.
Not that I’m going to panic about that yet. I’d want to see the technology developed and reaching maturity for other areas before saying that they ought to not overdo this energy source.
“I really cannot get my head around someone that would look at a physics textbook and go “Nahh thats wrong I will just make my own shit up”
Whose doing that?
After that corker you go on to make the same mistake as sod. Denying the need for any empirical backup you simply go on to reiterate what we see in the lab.
So lets go over it again. We want to see if the one-step armchair thinking pans out in the real world. We know about the spectroscopy. The hypothesis is that these facts of spectroscopy will pan out as catastrophic or yet even significant warming in the wider world.
You people really are stupid and hard to reach aren’t you?
Yes you are.
No more using the hypothesis as faux-evidence. Lets get some actual evidence or admit you are wrong.
Graeme Bird – “After that corker you go on to make the same mistake as sod. Denying the need for any empirical backup you simply go on to reiterate what we see in the lab.
So lets go over it again. We want to see if the one-step armchair thinking pans out in the real world. We know about the spectroscopy. The hypothesis is that these facts of spectroscopy will pan out as catastrophic or yet even significant warming in the wider world.”
So what you are saying is that nothing that is true in experiments can be true in the real world? Cohenite is saying that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas or if you prefer cannot absorb a photon of radiation because of its physical properties.
For real world data refer to HITRAN that is based on actual, real spectroscopic studies of the Earths atmosphere. This was done and the studies continue because this information is absolutely critical for the US Department of Defense. The exact properties of the atmosphere need to be known for the detection of missile launches and for the behaviour and tracking of nuclear warheads. As Defense issues are of course far more important that pure science (sigh) this was funded heavily out of paranoia. However every cloud has a silver lining and now we have a gem of knowledge that we can use along continuing funding because it is still important.
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/hitran/
“HITRAN is an acronym for high-resolution transmission molecular absorption database. HITRAN is a compilation of spectroscopic parameters that a variety of computer codes use to predict and simulate the transmission and emission of light in the atmosphere. The database is a long-running project started by the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories (AFCRL) in the late 1960’s in response to the need for detailed knowledge of the infrared properties of the atmosphere. ”
It is not theoretical studies but a compendium of actual measurements for a Cold War life and death reason.
Just have a look at the proceedings for the 10th conference. Can you honestly say that all the scientists presenting papers are wrong or their data and measurements do not pertain to the real world?
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/hitran/Download/Proceedings-08.pdf
“No more using the hypothesis as faux-evidence. Lets get some actual evidence or admit you are wrong.”
If I am wrong then a hell of a lot of people are wrong too – basic textbook stuff. So how about you go and read some and then come back with a greater understanding and you may get an inkling of how truly foolish you sound.
“So what you are saying is that nothing that is true in experiments can be true in the real world? ”
What is this? Some sort of Confederacy of idiots convention?
Yes it can be true in the real world. Sometimes one-step armchair thinking can pan out. But we need the empirical evidence. 3 threads and you are too stupid to so much as figure out that we need the empirical evidence. All the armchair thinking in the world, as useful as that is, doesn’t add up to a hill of beans without the evidence.
So lets have the evidence or admit you are wrong.
You cannot use the hypothesis as evidence for itself.
My God you people are so stupid. You make me sick just how dumb you are. No wonder you are all public servants. Too stupid to be tradesmen.
I’ll try and simplify this:
(((((((((Lab spectroscopy….. leads to paradigm about climate……. leads to speculation of what will happen to average temperature increase due to extra industrial-CO2)))))))))))
What we now need is evidence for that speculation. Yet you leftist idiots keep circling back to either the lab spectroscopy or the paradigm.
So you keep it a closed loop in order to keep yourselves in a state of blissful delusion and CO2-bedwetting.
You need to break out of that closed loop and actually find evidence to back up that speculation.
Tell me please that at least one of you life-long bludgers understands what is needed here?
Graeme Bird – “But we need the empirical evidence”
So Mr Super Intelligent person why is the Earth’s global average temperature at least 33degC above that of an equivilent black body?
Perhaps seeings as you are so far ahead of us you can also explain why the sky is dark at night. Louis does not seem to know despite being such a keen student of history.
“(((((((((Lab spectroscopy….. leads to paradigm about climate……. leads to speculation of what will happen to average temperature increase due to extra industrial-CO2)))))))))))”
Lets correct this:
Lab spectroscopy + undertanding of greenhouse gases + real world measurements ….. Leads to idea that greenhouse gases effect the Earths radiative balance …. with evidence of CO2 level changes associated with past climate change …. also with measurements of rising CO2 + isotpic measurements of CO2 + several different and long term measurements of global average temperature …. leads to conclusion that rising human emitted greenhouse gases and land use changes might the climate.
You left out, in your almost crippling ignorance, several important steps. I guess the biggest fool is the one shouting the loudest that everyone else is stupid. That’s you BTW just in case to missed the subtle innuendo.
“No wonder you are all public servants. Too stupid to be tradesmen.”
I guess you are used to sweeping generalisations without evidence – how do you know that I am a public servant?
Ok, just this once Graeme.
This is priceless…
You said
“Denying the need for any empirical backup you simply go on to reiterate what we see in the lab.”
Graeme, what people see in labaratory experiments is… dun dun dun daaaaaaaa EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE!!!
I can’t believe the sheer lunacy of this debate.
Cohenite et al, get a grip. If you think the thousands of papers that rely on the greenhouse effect for everything from planetary science, to geology, to oil exploration are wrong, good luck to you. BUT if you want anyone other than this Cabal of Crazies you inhabit to believe it you need to actually present a better theory.
Ender now be fair – it’s very difficult – Birdy would have to stop ranting and engage first gear. Which is very hard if imaginary force fields surround the gearshift.
Now is that going to happen?
The study appeared on Tuesday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
“NEW YORK – Human activity and the El Nino weather pattern over the last century have warmed West Antarctica, part of the world’s coldest continent, according to a study based on four years of collecting ice core data.
The West Antarctic warmed in response to higher temperatures in the tropical Pacific, which itself has been warming due to weather patterns like a major El Nino event from 1939 to 1942 and greenhouse emissions from cars and factories, according to the study.
“An increasingly large part of the signal is becoming due to human activity,” said the study’s lead author David Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. The study appeared on Tuesday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Previous studies had showed the West Antarctic had cooled partly due to winds caused by depletion of the ozone layer.
The El Nino pattern is a periodic shift in air pressure accompanied by oceanic warming in the tropical Pacific.
Scientists are interested in whether warming will destabilize the West Antarctic ice sheet, which covers a region the size of Mexico and averages about 6,500 feet (1,980 meters) deep. If it all melted, it would raise sea levels by 8 to 16 feet (2.5 to 5 metres).
There are few historical records and little understanding of how ice sheets might react to rising temperatures due to global warming.
The study, supported by the National Science Foundation, showed the West Antarctic warned about 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 C) over the 20th century, or slightly more than the global average of about 1.3 degrees F (0.7 C), though there was some uncertainty in the estimate.
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change figured last year that Antarctica would not contribute to rising sea levels, and in fact predicted a growth of the big ice sheet the covers much of the continent from enhanced precipitation.
There are parts of Antarctica that are gaining snowfall and ice, Schneider said, but the overall trend for the continent is that the ice is diminishing. (For more Reuters information on the environment, see http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/) (Reporting by Timothy Gardner, editing by Chris Wilson)”
“An increasingly large part of the signal is becoming due to human activity,”
Is this from some actual measurement with definite fingerprint or just attribution?
What is the difference between the signal due to human activity and other possible causes of the signal?
Verballed again by ender; ender says I say;
‘Cohenite is saying that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas or if you prefer cannot absorb a photon of radiation because of its physical properties”
ender, this is a lie. I did not say that. I am well aware that CO2 interacts with LW in the 15 micron range and, at increased pressure, over a slight spreading of other wavelengths; where I disagree with you is what happens next; the CO2 absorbs a LW photon and transfers that radiant energy to kinetic form and reemits another photon; the initial energy absorption is expressed or transformed into 2 subsequent energy forms, the reemitted photon and the vibrational kinetic energy; the kinetic energy will be transferred to another molecule by conduction; since CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere and nitrogen is 78%, chances are the conductive transfer will be to a nitrogen molecule; since the nitrogen can’t reemit it will retain the heat and rise along with the rest of the discrete gas parcel by convection; it is important to realise, however, that most of the heat received by nitrogen is through contact with the earth’s surface and that the amount it receives from contact with other molecules is relatively slight; as the gas parcel rises the continuing reemissions of the CO2 will be emitted into space; now by simple logic the CO2 molecule will decay to a lower energy ground state then it was at before the absorption; it will stay that way until it reabsorbs or receives kinetic transfer of energy which will be at a lower probability than a nitrogen or oxygen molecule receiving that kinetic transfer.
Now, will the CO2 increases continue to intercept LW; no because the slight heating they produce and transfer to predominantly nitrogen is defeated by convective exchange so that layer opaqueness does not occur. There is also the slight shift in wavelength due to SB and Wein action, hence the logarithmic decline. The difference between this heat producing and dissipation process in the atmosphere and the disingenuous greenhouse concept is explained here;
http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Kondis-Greenhouse.html
And the convective process I have referred to is examined and developed in this paper;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567030701568727
So, are we clear ender? CO2 and the other so-called GHG’s do absorb LW in various frequencies; the absorption with CO2 results in an energy deficeit at a molecular level (unless you are assuming a -ve energy situation) with the heat generated transferred to nitrogen by conduction; opaqueness is defeated by convective exchange and logarithmic effect.
The other verballing was in respect of the Philopona paper; I did not write that quote; it comes from the paper; luke says it has been superseded which is another point, and a debatable one.
Finally Cohenite provides some sources!
Thank you for that.
They’re interesting I guess, but it doesn’t sound like many people are listening to their theories.
I guess the big problem is that there is such a strong correlation between CO2 level and temps. Look at the Vostok ice cores, isotope studies for the Phanerozoic. All of them indicate when CO2 levels increase so does the temp.
How can a cooling effect from CO2 explain the paleoclimate evidence? If CO2 has a cooling effect why do we see the opposite in the geological record.
For a skeptic Cohenite I see little evidence of skepticism.
No was NOT superseded – more verballing – Philipona was added to and expanded. Original problem remains for you Cohenite – LW is up and matched according to theory. The end.
cohenite – “where I disagree with you is what happens next; the CO2 absorbs a LW photon and transfers that radiant energy to kinetic form and reemits another photon; the initial energy absorption is expressed or transformed into 2 subsequent energy forms, the reemitted photon and the vibrational kinetic energy; the kinetic energy will be transferred to another molecule by conduction”
Your not disagreeing with me, your disagreeing with standard textbooks on the subject. I have nothing to do with it other than pointing this out.
What basis do you have to support your ideas as opposed to those in the textbooks?
BTW your first reference is not a paper but an article and the second one – no wonder you think the way you do. Sorry Chilingars et al first attempt was debunked here:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/36w570322514n204/
“It is astonishing that the paper of Khilyuk and Chilingar (2006) (as well as Khilyuk and Chilingar 2004, for that matter) could pass the review process of a seemingly serious journal such as Environmental Geology. Such failures of this process, which is supposed to guarantee the quality of published literature, are likely to damage the reputation of this journal.”
and the new one here:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/chilinger_if_you_assume_that_c.php#more
“Where is the greenhouse effect in their equation 12? Well, it’s included in the coefficient α, which they assume will not change if CO2 is added to the atmosphere. That is, they assume that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. And yes, if the laws of physics were different and CO2 was not a greenhouse gas, adding it to the atmosphere would have a negligible effect on temperatures. Duh.”
NT – “I can’t believe the sheer lunacy of this debate.”
Ahh the cry of a newcomer to this blog. Don’t worry you will get used to it – the lunacy never ends it just gets recycled over and over.
“You IDIOT sod. You did it again. You mixed up the hypothesis with the conclusion. Just get it straight. A restatement of the hypothesis is not evidence for the conclusion.”
———————-
i did answer a specific question. less shouting and more reading would improve your posts massively.
———————–
It doesn’t even say that. Its being outrageously presumptuous to think that what you can do with static air and light in the lab will pan out in the much more large, dynamic, variable and complex planet.
————————
you do some basic experiments in Lab. then you will CALCULATE and MODEL the effect on our atmosphere.
that is how things are done in complexe science.
if you don t like that, stroll back to your cave or provide a second earth to do experiments with.
NT; CO2 lags temperature;
http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
http://www.hindu.com/2008/07/10/stories/2008071055521000.htm
Even Skeptical Science conceeds the point; which is why the enhanced greenhouse is so important to AGW
ender; I think you and your ilk confuse heat transfer with heat cause; radiative heating is the main source of heating on Earth; the secondary greenhouse radiative heating, as in a physical greenhouse, is swamped by heat transfers by conduction and convection of the primary radiative heating; nothing I’ve written contradicts that; you on the other hand, are promoting a form of -ve energy because you require a CO2 molecule to be warmer after it has expended the LW photon and kinetic energy than it was before it absorbed the photon; to this extent the greenhouse is a false term; a nitrogen blanket perhaps?
luke; the end. A good Burt Reynolds’ movie; a contradiction in terms, like AGW; speaking of movies, dealing with you guys is like Wilson Mizner’s views on working at Warner Bros. With Philopona you haven’t explained how the latter paper;
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL034228.shtml
contradicts the former;
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003GL018765.shtml
by explaining the increase in LW as sourced from increased solar brightness after cessation of aerosol blockage.
David – you’re still talking baloney – the UAH ‘error’ was well within their quoted margin for error. You’re using a tired old discredited argument:
“An artifact of the diurnal correction applied to LT has been discovered by Carl Mears and Frank Wentz (Remote Sensing Systems). This artifact contributed an error term in certain types of diurnal cycles, most noteably in the tropics. We have applied a new diurnal correction based on 3 AMSU instruments and call the dataset v5.2. This artifact does not appear in MT or LS. The new
global trend from Dec 1978 to July 2005 is +0.123 C/decade, or +0.035 C/decade warmer than v5.1. This particular error is within the published margin of error for LT of +/- 0.05 C/decade (Christy et al. 2003). We thank Carl and
Frank for digging into our procedure and discovering this error. All radiosonde comparisons have been rerun and the agreement is still exceptionally good. There was virtually
no impact of this error outside of the tropics.”
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/readme.03Jan2008
Christy and Spencer have helped RSS correct their data:
“Last January, I made a small change in the way TLT is calculated that reduced the absolute
Temperatures by 0.1K. But I only used the new method for 2007 (the error).
When the data are merged with MSU, MSU and AMSU are forced to be as close as possible to each
other over the 1999-2004 period of overlap. This caused the error to show up as a downward
jump in January 2007. To fix the problem, I reprocessed the 1998-2006 AMSU data using the new
code (like I should have done in the first place), and merged it with the MSU data.
We would like to thank John Christy and Roy Spencer, who were very helpful during the diagnosis process.”
Carl Mears, RSS, January 16 2008
http://www.remss.com/pub/msu/data/readme_jan_2008.txt
The Douglass et al paper was not ‘erroneous.’ Where’s your peer reviewed critique?
No one said Wentz was a sceptic, but what does evaporation equalling precipitation mean for positve feed back via water vapour?
Sod as wonderful as it would be to accept the experiment alas I feel it only measures the difference in the specific heat of air and pure CO2. I believe the experiment has bee done with a more potent greenhouse gas – methane – and the warming was less than air. Why – methane takes more heat to warm a similar quantity.
————————–
the experiment is the most simple one and can be done by anyone.
it should be possible to calculate, whether the difference in specific heat capacity explains the whole temperature difference.
(i ll try to get some of my friends to do some calculations. will take some persuasion though…)
anyone with a real Lab can do much better experiments and they form the basis of calculations for the properties of our atmosphere.
Cohenite, that still doesn’t make sense according to your CO2 cools theory.
If CO2 cools temp, why does the CO2 lag temp by 800 years (approx). If CO2 cooled then the incease in CO2 would stop the warming, or at least show an effect. But what we see in the record throughout the Phanerozoic is a correlation between CO2 and temp increases.
The lag is explained (for the ice core) by the Milankovitch cycles. The Milakovitch cycle changes to isolation start the warming, which releases CO2 from the ocean, which then continues the warming.
Cohenite, have you explored how CO2 warming of the atmosphere actually acts to slow the cooling of the Earth’s surface. So as CO2 concentration rises, the atmosphere warms, we see a reduction in thermal gradient between the surface and near surface air, and hence a slowing in the cooling of the surface.
Cohenite, look up some papers on Paleoclimate reconstructions, much better than blogs.
Birdie said…”August 11, 2008 Sea ice decline accelerates, Amundsen’s Northwest Passage opens…”
What’s so special about that? In 1944, the Canadian police boat, St. Roch, was the first ship to sail east to west through the Northwest Passage. There was ice, but it didn’t stop them, and the St. Rock is a small supply ship, not an icebreaker.
They sailed from Halifax on the east coast of Canada to Vancouver on the west coast in 86 days. That’s a distance of nearly 7600 miles.
The captain, Henry Larsen, was always taking about wind moving the ice, and that was the problem. Even Shackleton claimed the wind was the issue off Antarctica in 1914. They would get jammed in an ice flow and have to wait till the wind shifted to blow the ice away. When Shackleton rescued the part of his crew left on an Antarctic island, he had to wait for the ice to blow clear of the island so he could rescue them.
We did the Paleoclimate reconstruction bit to death when Steve Short was striding through here like a colossus; it’s also a fact that the Phiopona paper and its predecessor, Harries (2001) have also been done to death; the IRIS instrument has put paid to this, as ender well knows with his recycling of HITRAN; as to CO2 cooling; this is getting a bit exasperating; CO2 is both a warmer and a transferor of heat; at the molecular level the CO2 cools and the heating transference is dominated by other heat transfer mechanisms so that the EG is defeated; there are other negative feedbacks which are created by CO2 increases as Steve Short’s blooms showed; there also seems to be an inverse connection between CO2 levels and RH as the Minschwaner paper shows, which is another potent -ve feedback to temperature; the point is, the IPCC promulgated clear cut relationship between CO2 increase and temperature increase is anything but.
In all fairness I should point out that while I’m correct in terms of collision induced heating of nitrogen there is also some capacity for N2 and O2 to absorb IR; this is done by quadrupole absorption with a very long and therefore limiting optical depth.
Ender said…”Really? I guess then you should publish the paper stating this and get all the accolades you richly deserve”.
Linus Pauling won two Nobels and was reckoned to be one of the most emminent researchers in chemistry. He made a claim once without a double-blind study and someone pointed it out to him. Linus asked why a double-blind study was required when the outcome was so obvious.
Do I have to write a paper so you can see the obvious? You know the warming for the past century has be 0.6 +|- 2. I was being generous by claiming the warming since the end of 1940 was less than 0.5 C. The increase in CO2 since 1940 is about 70%, is it not?
Why do you need a paper written to see that your sensitivity is under 0.5 C in 60 years? What’s that, under 0.1 C per decade?
Cohenite, again you are ignoring the vast amount of research that has been done on Paleoclimate. And this is not about modelling, this is geological evidence from rocks and isotope analysis. The greenhouse effect is required to explain this, nothing explains it better.
You posted a paper that claimed CO2 would cool the atmosphere… Are you backing away from that now?
Cohenite – Philipona actually say “We have first investigated AOD over Europe (1986 to 2005 from measurements that we have) and then the shortwave radiation in Switzerland and in Northern Germany from 1981 to 2005. With decreasing aerosols at low altitude we see an increase in radiation at low altitudes (0 to 1000 m a.s.l.). The atmospheric transmission increased primarily from the mid 1980s to 2000. We have now looked at the full radiation budget including longwave effects and this shows that there is also forcing due to water vapor feedback. The greenhouse forcing concept does not change except, that from the mid 1980s to 2000 in europe the aerosol decrease produced additional strong shortwave forcing.”
I know already you won’t be satisfied of course.
Incidentally your predilection for jumping on every latest paper has me awestruck. But be that as it may – has not your LW excited CO2 molecule not only captured LW energy and heated by collisions N2 and/or O2 molecules and re-emitted half the emitted photons downward? Otherwise the original LW photon would have escaped to space. I am listening??
Louis: “Jan Pompe and I do not deny radiative physics – you only think we do because of ignorance.”
Thank you.
Any argument that misrepresents a position is a strawman argument. This what 3nd3r does.
Meanwhile I have a roast in the oven enjoying some radiation physics (She ain’t fan forced)
NT; no, the Chilingar paper says the increase in the surface temperature at sea level caused by a doubling of the present-day CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will be less than 0.01C; that’s an increase; they go onto say;
“In addition, evaluating the climatic consequences of anthropogenic CO2 emission, one has to take into consideration the fact that emitted carbon dioxide dissolves in oceanic water (according to Henry’s Law) and then is fixed into carbonates. In this process, together with carbon, a part of atmospheric oxygen is also transferred into the carbonates. Therefore, instead of a slight increase in the atmospheric pressure, one should expect a slight decrease with a corresponding insignificant cooling of climate. In addition, part of carbon dioxide is reduced to methane in the process of hydration of oceanic crust rocks. Because of formation of carbonates and generation of methane, about 2.3×10/8 tons per year of CO2 are removed from the atmosphere; the potential consumption of CO2 in the process of hydration, however, is considerably higher. Although the period of this geochemical cycle is over 100 years, the effect of CO2 consumption is additive.
Together with the anthropogenic CO2, part of O2 is also removed from the atmosphere (aboput 2.3 g per i g of carbon). If the ocean and plants consume all this additional CO2, after the year 2100 this would lead to a reduction in atmospheric pressure by approximately 0.34 mbar and cooling of the climate by -8.2 x 10/2C ~-0.1C. Actually, the metabolism of plants should almost completely compensate for the disruption of equlibrium by mankind and restore the climatic balance.”
Something for everyone; of course Steve Short’s work with the blooms suggests that the CO2 sponsored balance may tip below the equlibrium.
cohenite – “I think you and your ilk confuse heat transfer with heat cause; radiative heating is the main source of heating on Earth; the secondary greenhouse radiative heating, as in a physical greenhouse, is swamped by heat transfers by conduction and convection of the primary radiative heating;”
How – it is a fairly simple radiative balance question. For the Earth to neither warm or cool the incoming radiation must balance the outgoing. If something either absorbs IR it on the way out or reflects SW out without heating then the Earth MUST assume a temperature that balances input with output. Nothing is swamped, each adds the overall heating of the Earth. The Earth is the temperature it is to balance the incoming with the outgoing.
You need to read some more textbooks and place less faith in single papers that seem to confirm your views.
“You need to read some more textbooks and place less faith in single papers that seem to confirm your views.”
Like AR4, you mean?
I know that the AGW hysterics will jump and down and say that “several months of weather doesn’t equal climate”, but you can’t help but notice all the stories about Global Warming missing in action … (so long as you don’t waste your time watching the ABC or reading the Alarmist Age, that is):
“bitter cold and lots of snow on the way for 08-09” – Old Farmer’s Almanac Discussion Forum
(www.almanac.com/forum/read.php?9,257642)
“August is usually the busiest month of the year for Maine’s tourism industry.
Instead, it’s rained 10 of the last 11 days and it’s unseasonably cool.”
(www.necn.com/Boston/Weather/Maines-tourism-industry-suffering-due-to-weather/1218493580.html)
“A cool and very wet July for Juneau, Alaska.
“The average high temperature for the month of 58.0 degrees was the lowest average high for the month of July ever recorded since records began in 1943.”
(Www.arh.noaa.gov/arhdata/validFcsts/public/CXAK57PAJK)
“NZ on track to break snow depth records”
(forums.ski.com.au/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=483512&page=1#Post483512)
“CHILLY: Anchorage could hit 65 degrees for fewest days on record.
Right now the so-called summer of ’08 is on pace to produce the fewest days ever recorded in which the temperature in Anchorage managed to reach 65 degrees.”
(www.adn.com/life/story/473786.html)
Ho hum ….
July 23, 2008 Summer heat that is fairly typical in other parts of Canada is a rare phenomenon in Iqaluit, which is in the middle of an Arctic heat wave.
Residents say daytime temperatures consistently above 20 C have never been felt before in the Baffin Island region, where the Nunavut capital is located.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2008/07/23/iqaluit-heat.html
Heat wave claims 8 lives in Japan
The warmest weather was reported in Tajimi, Gifu Prefecture, where temperatures reached 102.2 degrees, and in Tokai, Aichi Prefecture, where it was 101.12 degrees, Kyodo News reported.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/07/27/Heat_wave_claims_8_lives_in_Japan/UPI-44671217199361/
Temperature Records Fall as June Heat Wave Continues
Today’s temperatures, averaging more then ten degrees above normal, broke records across Georgia and the eastern seaboard, as the heat wave we’re in continues.
http://www.lawrencevilleweather.com/blog/2008/06/temperature-records-fall-june-heat-wave.html
4 dead in Texas heatwave
odeo.com/episodes/23148291-Texas-Suffers-Record-Heat-Wave
Floe breaks off Canadian ice shelf
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24104517-11949,00.html
AN area of ice covering about 18sqkm has broken off Canada’s largest remaining ice shelf.
ice floe
Trent University researcher Derek Mueller said yesterday he would not be surprised if more ice broke off during the northern summer from the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, a vast frozen plain off the north coast of Ellesmere Island in Canada’s far north.
In a development consistent with climate change theories, the enormous icy plain broke free some time last week and began slowly drifting into the Arctic Ocean. The piece had been a part of the shelf for 3000 years.
luke; you’re shameless; the Ward Hunt Island ice floe disaster; unprecedented since 2005;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3362
Just doin’ what Ivan (xxx till my brain explodes) taught me….
“luke; you’re shameless; the Ward Hunt Island ice floe disaster; unprecedented since 2005;”
You’re shameless, it’s the last bit that was left.
“Even Skeptical Science conceeds the point; which is why the enhanced greenhouse is so important to AGW”
Even … concedes? Give me break. It’s no concession at all. Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but we weren’t around releasing gigatons of years of CO2 into to atmosphere in a few centuries. Maybe you should start comparing like with like.
SJT; according to the Ruddiman thesis we were;
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006EO350008.shtml
This thesis should be rewad in conjunction with this somewhat vital information;
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2486.1995.tb00009.x?journalCode=gcb
Ivan
Do not underestimate the clowns – they know the litany, chapter and verse.
Louis don’t pull yourself down so much.
Luke, don’t need to, I have you to overcompensate.
“Cohenite, again you are ignoring the vast amount of research that has been done on Paleoclimate. And this is not about modelling, this is geological evidence from rocks and isotope analysis. The greenhouse effect is required to explain this, nothing explains it better.”
No in fact NT you are lying. The greenhouse effect CANNOT explain it. Witness the failure of Goddard to explain the Snowball earth. The greenhouse effect cannot explain the record and in fact is not required to explain it except perhaps as a finessing exercise.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now we’ve just got to go over it and over it and over it again until the scales fall from your eyes.
You cannot include facts that lead you to conjure the hypothesis as evidence that the hypothesis is true. Only a lunatic would think otherwise.
Because if you come up with an hypothesis, supposing that you are not a left-winger or a full-blown Marxist, you cannot know whether the hypothesis you came up with is true or false. If you already knew that it was either true or false it would not be an hypothesis at all.
You are putting forward the hypothesis to be tested. There is a reason, why you have made the inductive inference to formulate the hypothesis. But whatever that reason is it cannot be brought forth as evidence for the conclusion.
This ought to be obvious. If it isn’t for the love of God kill yourself to save the globe from the risk of you passing on your seed. Its just terrible knowing that people this stupid have infected the world of science and I blame public funding of education.
“(((((((((Lab spectroscopy….. leads to paradigm about climate……. leads to speculation of what will happen to average temperature increase due to extra industrial-CO2)))))))))))”
Above is the loop that you are all stuck in. You have only your Mother and Father to blame for the level of stupidity that keeps you within that loop.
Obviously there are facts and phenomenon that inspire people to make inductive inferences. No intelligent person makes a valid inductive inference in a vacumn of knowledge or information. This data, knowledge, information or whatever would have to have inspired the hypothesis in the first place.
IT CANNOT BE USED TO VERIFY THAT SAME HYPOTHESIS.
Now do you all understand that? This is very strange for me. Because in my extended family I wouldn’t imagine that there would be even one person so stupid as to not understand this.
Were I any of you alarmists older brothers or father I’d just have to slap you around and send you to your bedroom without anything to eat until you at least got this obvious reality of the tool of induction sorted. I mean if it isn’t obvious to you just from having lived on the planet a little while it would have to be beaten into you so you responded to these questions in a more Pavlovian way.
In other news much speculation about the motives of how Michael Duffy will allegedly stooge a fair winner of $1000 dollars is happening over at Deltoid. The suspense is beginning to build as each alarmist idiot expects that someone will just casually lob the winning study into the mix. But as is usual for Deltoid no evidence has been put forward or talked about.
If I thought I could win the $1000 off Duffy I’d do so in the instant. And I’m far less stupid than any of you alarmists. So I’ll of course be interested to see if you can pull it off.
A bit like locking Monkeys in a room on the off-chance that they might write a second sequel to Paradise Lost on the basis of sheer chance.
“Luke, don’t need to, I have you to overcompensate.”
Thats a great point Louis. Having all these alarmist science workers around gives one a big head. Completely undeserving of course. But next time I”m a bit down in mood I’ll be able to console myself that my thinking hasn’t fallen down to the level of primitive tribesman like these fellow.
(Point made)
I don’t get it. “No intelligent person makes a valid inductive inference in a vacumn of knowledge or information” – so how do you do it then?
“”(((((((((Lab spectroscopy….. leads to paradigm about climate……. leads to speculation of what will happen to average temperature increase due to extra industrial-CO2)))))))))))””
————–
it is NOT called “speculation”. it is called CALCULATION.
lab experiments can tell you EXACTLY what effect an increase of CO2 will have in different layers of the atmosphere.
from there on, it is CALCULATION, to get the effect in the whole atmosphere.
if you want to include more complexe processes (clouds, feedbacks, etc..) you will have to use a MODEL.
i ll leave it to others, to determine the level of stupidity in your extended family.
SJT: “You’re shameless, it’s the last bit that was left.”
No it wasn’t. Did you actually read the article? If you had then you would also have seen that that ice shelf has been in decline since the ’30s, and the ice in the area has been in decline for a whole century or more.
Ender: “For the Earth to neither warm or cool the incoming radiation must balance the outgoing.”
You’re assuming that the Earth is a perfect blackbody – it’s not.
Some of the surface heat is dissipated into the rock and water below, warming them over a long period. Some of the heat is transformed into kinetic energy, evidenced by wind, waves and ocean currents. Some is lost as latent heat. We’re talking about not inconsiderable amounts of energy here.
sod: “if you want to include more complexe processes (clouds, feedbacks, etc..) you will have to use a MODEL.”
And to make the MODEL work you have to thoroughly understand all those processes, and be able to quantify their effects to a high degree of accuracy. Otherwise your MODEL tells you more about itself than the real world.
” Can you not be happy for other folks Birdie? Slightly warmer winter mornings for the Laplanders Birdie?
Little Yukos gets to see his first butterfly Birdie?” – GB
You see that this info comes from a paper that has its headquarter 2ookm NORTH OF THE POLAR CIRCLE!!!!
You know what Bird, we don’t want them miserable European and UK winters with fog and rain , we wanna do the Alpine and Nordic skiing and want to wear proper outdoor garment , like Canadian Goose and Helly Hansen outdoor clothes.
And the reindeers suffer from the the warming….
Luke
Do what then?
Some help:
“Don’t get it. “No intelligent person makes a valid inductive inference in a vacumn of knowledge or information” – so how do you do it then?:
“For the Earth to neither warm or cool, the incoming radiation must balance the outgoing.”
Not really. It’s best to regard radiant energy simply as a finite power source — indeed that power is expressed as watts per square meter. An object is said to “cool” by radiating, yet this would seem to imply that restricting its radiation will make it get hotter and hotter. That’s the very premise of greenhouse theory, of course, that by disturbing outgoing radiance any magnitude of temperature gain is possible. But this is easy to test. Confine a lightbulb inside an infrared barrier (like a globular mirror) and electrically feed 1 watt to it. After a while, will it be generating the heat of a thousand watt bulb? No. When its temperature is consistent with the input, further heating stops. It’s like water seeking its own level. Lacking any means to radiate to its surroundings, the lightbulb merely gets as hot as a watt of power can make it, which is not much hotter than what it would be in the open. If not, we’d be able to generate incredible temperatures very cheaply. Just confine, wait, and release.
Conservation of energy: it’s not just a phrase. The theory of radiative equilibrium arose early in the 19th century, before the laws of thermodynamics were understood.
From The Analytical Theory of Heat:
The radiation of the sun in which the planet is incessantly plunged, penetrates the air, the earth, and the waters; its elements are divided, change direction in every way, and, penetrating the mass of the globe, would raise its temperature more and more, if the heat acquired were not exactly balanced by that which escapes in rays from all points of the surface and expands through the sky. — Joseph Fourier (1768-1830)
“And to make the MODEL work you have to thoroughly understand all those processes, and be able to quantify their effects to a high degree of accuracy. Otherwise your MODEL tells you more about itself than the real world.”
—————
you might want to do some reading on what a “MODEL” is.
the major point of a “MODEL” is, that it does reduce the complexity of reality.
you then compare the output of your model with reality and adjust if necessary.
>The Douglass et al paper was not ‘erroneous.’ Where’s your peer reviewed critique?
Paul it will come. They used out-dated radiosonde data and there analysis if taken literally would conclude that climate models runs are inconsistent with the climate model trends – ie there methods are seriously flawed. This statistical analysis error has been repeated since – including on this blog – but not one of the sceptics on this blog picked it (so much for being sceptics).
>No one said Wentz was a sceptic, but what does evaporation equalling precipitation mean for positve feed back via water vapour?
Read the papers I have provided you. Wentz’s analysis confirms that there is a very strong water vapour feedback. Indeed, if a warmer world experiences an exponential increase in evaporation we are in big trouble. That means an exponential increase in flooding, hurricanes, storms and droughts as the hydrological cycle increases exponentially.
There is no published science to support this thread… period. If there is, lets see the papers.
“No it wasn’t. Did you actually read the article? If you had then you would also have seen that that ice shelf has been in decline since the ’30s, and the ice in the area has been in decline for a whole century or more.”
That’s right. There has been a long term retreat of glaciers. This retreat has accelerated since AGW started to show it’s effects. That’s why it is significant. It is one more, long standing, ice system that has shown an accelerated decline.
“SJT has no point – he is paid by the AGO”
Hah, you’re funny.
“I’m also bemused that AGW supporters seem to have a ‘special knowledge’ about what the World’s optimum climate state should be. I wish they’d tell us: is it the one we have now, or had 10, 20 or 30 years ago?”
No, it’s just that this is what the ecosystems have adapted to. There’s no knowledge on our part required.
“Paul it will come. They used out-dated radiosonde data and there analysis if taken literally would conclude that climate models runs are inconsistent with the climate model trends – ie there methods are seriously flawed.”
That, if serious, is a very asinine statement; why? Koutsoyiannis for a start and every flawed, obscurantist and incorrect prediction and ‘scientific’ justification employed by AGW supporters; Ammann and Wahl, Mann , Sherwood and Allen, every thing said by Gore, Hansen, Flannery and King etc.
And where do you get off with your apocalyptic scenarios; you must work for the Guardian;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange
NT, I hope you are reading this, because this irresponsible post is the reason why I cannot take AGW supporters seriously; they always revert to one or both of their fundamental tactics; ad hom or the end is nigh; you said runaway is impossible; unfortunately 99% of your fellow travellers either believe the opposite or are prepared to lie about it.
In fact this is the defining question to ask of AGW supporters; is AGW going to produce an ‘end-of-the-world’ catastrophe?
sjt
“There’s no knowledge on our part required.”
And none provided either!!!
Alan – “Not really. It’s best to regard radiant energy simply as a finite power source”
Do you actually know anything about physics? You say ‘not really’ however then go on to describe exactly what is happening.
The light bulb in your example would heat up its surroundings including its enclosure until the amount of energy the enclosure lost either by conduction, convection or radiation lost equaled the input energy. You could affect this equilibrium temperature by say cooling the outside by an airflow and this would mean that the temperature inside would be lower. This is the basis of engine cooling where the temperature of the engine must be kept below the material’s working temperatures so a suffiently large cooling system must be in place so when the engine reaches whatever operating point it is designed for the energy balance of incoming heat and outgoing heat is sufficiently low so the oil can lubricate the cylinders.
The size of the cooling system is calculated with heat flow calculation the same as is applied to the ones that calculate that the net imbalance in the Earth system at the moment between incoming and outgoing radiation, after considering all forcings positive and negative is about the equivilent of 4W per meter of radiated energy. It is just a convention nothing more.
No-one that understands thermodynamics would consider that a 1W globe is suddenly made into a 1000W globe by insulation.
Do you actually have ANY training in physics. I only have high school level and yet this is sufficient for even me to see to gaping holes in your own knowledge. Why not study the subject a bit before any more guest posts PLEASE.
“Do not underestimate the clowns – they know the litany, chapter and verse.”
Louis – They do, but they are starting to fall into one of their own traps .. i.e. the “weather isn’t climate” litany.
The examples that Luke quotes:
> “Iqaluit sweats in record heat wave..”
A weather event. And who is the source? Environment Canada — who are worse than our own BoM – and hardly an impartial commentator. More squalid even than CSIRO.
> “Heat wave claims 8 lives in Japan..”
A weather event.
> And the last two are actually in the same place .. i.e. southern United States.
If you look at the items that I posted they were all about persistent, long term climatic cold changes.
So — now Global Warming has become localised heat waves? 12 lives claimed – that’s their best shot? Never mind the hundreds killed by cold during the last winter?
I also see that the good Professor K. – the noted ‘sceptic’ from the Earth Sciences Faculty at Bovine University – is getting an outing in the Alarmist Age this morning. All fairly boring and predictable.
But what is fascinating is a story on Page 15 of the same paper, under the heading “Sahara’s arid sands give up their hidden green past”. I note with interest the following in the second column:
“The sahara has been a desert for untold milleniums. But about 12,000 years ago, a faint wobble in the Earth’s orbit and some other factors caused Africa’s seasonal monsoons to shift slightly north, bringing rains to the Sahara.
About 8000 years ago, the rains retreated, leaving the region arid once more and causing it to be abandoned. Then 1000 years later, the rains returned for two more milleniums, befor retreating.”
WHAT??
Climate variability WITHOUT the wholesale burning of fossil fuels? Without SUVs? How is this supposed to be possible?
And more importantly – how did this item get past the thought police at the Alarmist Age, I wonder?
“There is no published science to support this thread… period. If there is, lets see the papers.”
I would have thought that there has been more than ample evidence presented, by Bill, and others, showing that which elements of the science is correct is matter of opinion,and intent.
BTW where is the published data to show how the CSIRO constructs and operates its climate models that,including all asumptions and validations. Where is the independant review of this.
OTOH Koutosyannis et al would have us believe, in a peer reviewed document, that they are by testing against empirical evidence, ALL decidedly suss,including the CSIRO versions.
Judging by the way the CSIRO and the BOM undertook the joint drought study and have been caught out not to complying with accepted practices, you have to have doubts about what else they are not declaring.
The CSIRO just seems to lift nonsensical stuff from the UN. Its embarrassing that they could fall so low. And you’ve got to wonder about the gutlessness or competence of CSIRO scientists who have gone along with this nonsense and no protest made.
“That’s right. There has been a long term retreat of glaciers. This retreat has accelerated since AGW started to show it’s effects.”
No thats nonsense. The retreat has not accelerated.
“That’s right. There has been a long term retreat of glaciers. This retreat has accelerated since AGW started to show it’s effects.”
No thats nonsense. The retreat has not accelerated. And there has been no known or perceptible showing up of any AGW effect.
“it is NOT called “speculation”. it is called CALCULATION.”
No no. Thats bullshit. Its speculation. You need evidence. Speculation isn’t evidence. Speculation with computers is STILL not evidence. Speculation with computers and maths is STILL not evidence. Particularly when the computer models don’t work.
Now have you got any evidence? Three threads and no evidence. Michael Duffy triumphant.
“So Mr Super Intelligent person why is the Earth’s global average temperature at least 33degC above that of an equivilent black body?”
Only a small part of this is due to the gas-colour-effect. The earth is not a black body for one thing. Gravity for another. Any gravitational body with liquids and gasses will retain some heat. The earth doesn’t need the gas-colour effect to retain some heat in its magma for example.
Overturning is another thing. The phrase “heat rises” is a valid compression of what we are talking about here even if your high school teacher will mark you down for using the phrase.
The various strata will cause the generalization that “heat rises” to be reversed. Whenever you see that reversal you can get heat buildup.
So supposing you are boiling your Kettle. In a spaceship the heat would go everywhere and the water with it. But on earth you have a strata set up between the water and the air. So the hot water will rise up but before it can escape its strata the idea that heat rises will be reversed and the water will be forced downward. Hence allowing the kettletian heat budget to build.
On earth when you see the Gulf Stream sinking below the Labrador sea. Or if you see upwelling of cold water. Anything like that will allow a heat buildup quite independent of the gas-colour effect.
So this 33 degrees business is a massive overestimate if you are putting it down to the gas-colour effect. The next step is to overestimate the relative importance of the CO2. Then they would overestimate the relative importance of the EXTRA CO2. Than overestimate the amount of the extra-CO2 due to human influence.
By the time they have built an overestimation on an overestimation on an overestimation on an overestimation you have a panic on your hands. But if its not one thing, with these eschatological utopians, it will be another.
33 degrees is not the universally accepted gas-colour effect. Others say as little as 12 degrees. I don’t look at things in this static-equilibrium way. Even given that I couldn’t vouch for any particular figure. But I can say with great assurance that the effect is way way less than 33 degrees. Thats all I can say. But a lot of people on this thread will likely tell you that the effect is going to be quite small indeed and have many good reasons to back that up.
Hence the effect of the extra CO2 will be very small. And the effect of the human-influenced portion of the extra CO2 must be tiny. As we have seen in terms of the lack of empirical evidence for this effect.
“So Mr Super Intelligent person why is the Earth’s global average temperature at least 33degC above that of an equivilent black body?”
If the issue was not one of cost this may have been a bit of a failing with Pauling. You do the work. You don’t rely on inductive brilliance alone. And Pauling wasn’t perfect. He got in a scrap with Art Robinson and he wanted to misrepresent his own data.
You get geniuses but geniuses don’t always do things the right way.
Oops. Wrong quote.
“And none provided either!!!”
Oooohhhhh, you got me there. No, wait, you didn’t. Sorry.
The ender school of negative energy and other magiks; school song;
We put the photon in,
We take the photon out;
We’re all CO2
wiggling all about.
School motto: Mother nature is a bitch, but we love her; snide and ecofascism forever!
I’ve said already ender that you and your fellow nature-worshipping catastrophists don’t understand the difference between heat creation and heat transfer; a combustion engine is not in thermal equlibrium with its surround; what would be the point? We’d still be living in the caves that you want to take us back too; the engine is a LTE which comes to equlibrium with the surround via the heat transfer which occurs with its work; the LTE is, of course, the reason why the notion of average global temp is such a foolishness; it ignores the source of the true equilibrium, which is the heat and energy transfers. Earth’s surface and atmosphere is a closed system; the only way it can change is through the introduction of extra exogenous energy; from the sun, asteroids, aliens etc; taking CO2 from the ground and putting it into the atmosphere is not exogenous and rotational and atmospheric effects via virial and equipartition maintain equlibrium; so to with radiative processes; Stewart’s Law states;
“that when an object is studied in thermal equlibrium, its absorption is equal to its emission.”
Before the advent of AGW, so the myth goes, Earth was in thermal equilibrium; the release of the fossil fuel carbon allegedly upsets this thermal equilibrium; but it cannot because, given thermal equlibrium, the production of radiation from each object must be equal; simply put if more radiation is being absorbed, more is being emitted; the thermal gradient in the atmosphere will be maintained (and the absence of troposphere warming as the IRIS instrument shows, proves this) because the heat transfer mechanisms of convection and conduction (as Chilingar’s paper shows) removes the opaque barrier; the Miscolczian model is far preferable to the AGW/Weart semi-infinite model for this reason; the Weart model focuses on layer radiative heating and ignores the heat transfer and reequilibrising mechanisms (which are an inevitable product of the radiative processes, both the primary solar one, and the insignificant GHG one); where Miscolczi went wrong was that he preferred Kirchhoff to Stewart; a minor point in the scheme of things, though crucial because the universality of Kirchhoff is negated by LTE’s; a good paper on this is here;
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0805/0805.1625.pdf
Of course I”ve got you you nut SJT. You haven’t come up with any evidence you moron.
Thats just a fact. None of you have come up with the evidence. It doesn’t matter what I do. You don’t have the evidence. You are a filthy fraud.
No matter what I do it cannot ever be evidence for this science fraud that you are putting about.
Furthermore 50 billion dollars and no evidence arrived at is clearly evidence for the contrary case.
My god you are stupid. You are an embarrassment. I could say learn to think for yourself but you would need a brain transplant or you would have to die and be born again.
The alarmists do not have a case and cannot have a case on the basis of picking up on the arguments of their opponents. They need a positive case of their own with their own positive evidence. This they do not have. So they are engaged in science fraud. Simple as that. And they ought to be sacked.
Climate rationalists would have their case without even getting up in the morning. Simply on the basis that the other side is devoid of evidence. It is the alarmists that want to impose costs. If they were decent humans rather than genocidal scum they wouldn’t want to impose costs without evidence.
If they had any interest in ecological abundance they would not be the least bit interested in restricting CO2 emissions.
“So they are engaged in science fraud. Simple as that. And they ought to be sacked.”
Graeme – you’re exactly right, of course. And if only it were that simple. The problem is that the AGW Industry is organised according to a model that would be familiar to -either- the ‘closed-shop’ of industrial trade unions -or- the mafia. Everyone knows everyone else. Everyone works/worked with everyone else. They all help each other into the ‘make-work’ AGW scavenger-hunt ‘research’ jobs. They all ‘peer-review’ each others’ papers, dissenters are dispatched, and so on it goes. One great big sheltered workshop.
If you were to start sacking them, where would you stop? Since everyone associated with the AGW Industry is leeching off the taxpayer, it is as much a political problem as anything else. The politicians created this problem, and at the moment, they can’t get the genie back into the bottle – even if they wanted to.
AGW is symbiotic by nature – you have parasites on top of sponges on top of leeches on top of the sharks. It’s impossible to kill all the parasites at the lowest level – there are just too many of them. The shark politicians at the top of the food chain are still in a position where there is no perceived threat. In fact it is all upside – all these wonderful new taxes to be channelled into their vote-buying slush funds.
AGW as a political problem can only be solved at the top by climatic reversal. When it comes it will kill off public sympathy and drive a political solution in response. And the politicians will be glad to be rid of them, as they are clearly a huge politicial threat at present. The metaphorical bloodbath that ensues as all these unemployed AGW gubmint science boys compete (unsuccessfully) with Afghani refugees for taxi driving jobs will be something to tell the grandchildren about. With relish.
Cohenite – what a load of total bullshit. All you’re doing is stapling every speculative paper that appeals to you in a conga line of arseholes and claiming “that’s it”. How about some empirical evidence.
I wondered where Mark Latham had ended up; Jennifer’s blog! How can I give you empirical evidence when every time Christy and Spencer and UAH and the AMSR-E instrument are mentioned they are ad homed to death?
“Cohenite – what a load of total bullshit. All you’re doing is stapling every speculative paper that appeals to you in a conga line of arseholes and claiming “that’s it”. How about some empirical evidence.”
Even if what you are saying Luke. It doesn’t matter. Because you don’t have any evidence you idiot. How is it that total retards like you got into science? Your not rationally employable in science. Have you bought into some philosophical bullshit that science is about conjectures and refutations? About falsification? Its not. Its about competing paradigms and convergent verification. And your crowd has failed to verify your paradigm with evidence. Plus its a crap paradigm for starters.
You are not a scientist Luke. Anyone who thinks they can impose costs on people without evidence was never cut out for science. Without socialist education and science funding you could never have been employable as a science worker.
Go to Deltoid, come here, go anywhere you want. The parasitical side of the argument is acting as though it can make a case via the poo-pooing of any contrary ideas. A sort of Popper-bastardisation. A faux-Popperism for idiots.
“AGW as a political problem can only be solved at the top by climatic reversal. When it comes it will kill off public sympathy and drive a political solution in response.”
The cooling has already started and these assholes are still plying their trade. I suppose these things take time. How many years of heavy snows it will take who knows. But ending the global warming racket will be ashes in our mouths if these science-frauds are still on the payroll. They will just be out there causing trouble for their benefactors any way they can.
Ivan, I don’t fully agree with you on this: “AGW as a political problem can only be solved at the top by climatic reversal. When it comes it will kill off public sympathy and drive a political solution in response.”
Actually, I think the real stake in the heart will be the slimming of the “Rich West’s” average person’s pocket book due to Green taxes and raised costs. Is global warming happening in India or China? Perhaps, but do they really care?
We will soon see the strategy of raising energy prices and Green Taxes reversed when the proponent politicians are ridiculed and voted out of office. AU made a mistake in it’s last elections. It will be reversed when the pain of that election rises.
CoRev, Not too concerned about which stake pierces the heart – more concerned that it happens sooner rather than later – preferably while there is still a viable future for the next generation.
In my view, AGW is the late 20th century’s reprise of mass hysteria occasioned by self delusion. Of course everyone bears responsibility for their own actions, but rarely does it turn out that way. Once the population at large realise how they have been gulled by all this nonsense, it is to be hoped that they will turn on the architects of this nonsense with a vengeance. Names being blackened in perpetuity and/or being spat upon in public spring to mind as fitting punishments.
Bird you had your chance in Dobell. You have your answer. Diddly squat support. Now shut up and get back in line you unrepresentative swill and keep your silly opinions to yourself – you’re an embarrassment to the denialist cause.
You are not a scientist Luke. If you are unable to die and be born again with a scientific ethos you should just lie low and be grateful for your parasitical paycheck you get every week for not doing anything so rash as to get fired.
Why should we listen to some trumped up little twerp who can’t even get a handful of votes on these stupid ill-informed views – now bugger off you abject failure. You’re a disgrace to denialists.
Luke you moron. This is about science, science-fraud, and evidence. It isn’t about anything else.
NOW WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE!!!!
This is the longest-running evidence filibuster in history. And you are a big part of it. You ought not be working as a scientist. You know that don’t you? Some part of you must know that.
A handful of votes hey? Thats your new scientific argument is it Luke?
Well to get you back on track I want you to outline the assumptions behind this straight-from-radiative-physics bipartisan assumption about 1 degrees for a doubling of CO2. I’ve heard good people make this claim but personally I think its rubbish.
So perhaps you could outline the aggregations and simplifying assumptions that can make that turkey fly. Because I have been unsuccessful in shaking down Professor Barry Brook for this information.
He’s bald by the way Luke? Is this baldness a scientific argument in your idiotic opinion Luke?
Why do you stupid leftist lying bully-boys hang around sites like this? You ought to know that your mindlessness excludes you from any debate and that the debate ought to be WITHIN climate rationalist circles.
No you are the shonk wasting our time clogging up the blogosphere and electoral processes with your spurious nonsense. You are a dweeb mate – and we don’t waste time with dweebs – so get off our blog and stay off. You’ve been told the answer numerous times on this blog but your comprehension level little past kindy makes it difficult. The only way is to have mass sacking of anyone who shares your opinions.
Shall we (giggle) put it to a vote.
No no. It is YOU that are the idiot. And virtually all your posts are content free.
Lets have that evidence NOW Luke.
Why didn’t you take up plumbing or something? You couldn’t cling to some baseless phony otherworldly paradigm if you were involving yourself in plumbing. You couldn’t substitute a make-believe pipe for the real thing. Plus you’d earn more money and be doing something that you might have a chance of being good at.
So lets have the evidence. If you feel you need to repost something you posted before go right ahead. It will still be in the memory of your computer.
You see we wanted actual evidence Luke. Not you lying and claiming that you’d already posted it. You might have thought that what we have been after all this time was for you to lie and claim that you already had given us the evidence.
I assure you that this is not the case and that what we wanted was actual evidence.
GB – you’re not ready for the evidence yet, although I have given you years worth here. Your mind needs to evolve more. If you only had attained more than 1000 votes I might be bothered. It’s all your fault GB.
Lets go again. We wanted actual evidence. Not someone lying and claiming that he’s already showed up with it. While you alarmists might think that lying about already having given the evidence is an effective substitute for the evidence itself I assure you it is not.
Now if I’ve merely missed the evidence that you currently lyingly say you’ve submitted RESUMBMIT YOU IDIOT. It will be right there on your computer you lying moron.
GO!!!
Luke has never submitted actual evidence. Is not competent to figure out what would be evidence. And is basically only here to run the blog owner down. He is a proven liar. Even in the last several posts he has lied many times.
There is about 3 years worth of evidence here. Start reading – blog starts in April 2005. I want your detailed rebuttal – I’m not your library service.
No no. You are lying. You haven’t come up with any empirical evidence to test any relevant specific hypothesis.
Make a serious contribution for a change you moron. What is your specialty anyway? Staying out of trouble and banking your parasitical paycheck no doubt.
Luke, Luke, if, after your years of scholarly effort, you cannot in a few words present a cogent argument why do you persist in tossing links at us as if were capable of reaching the appropriate conclusions?
Clearly it is beyond your ken, what hope have we?